On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 07:02:16PM +0200, Matthias Buelow wrote: > Emanuel Strobl wrote: > > >Huh? I thought by default it is "HIGH", but it would also explain the > >experiences in the thread "cpufreq related RELENG_5 regression" > >(http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=389949+393881+/usr/local/www/db/text/2005/freebsd-stable/20050327.freebsd-stable) > > But does that also affect desktop machines? I'm not under the > impression that my CPU is running at a lower frequency. The issue > I mentioned only seems to occur when doing larger block reads/writes > from/to disk (SATA), like untarring firefox. I didn't notice it > so far when some kind of mixed disk access is going on, like with > find, compiling, etc. Maybe that points to some locking issues in > the VM corner? I mean, it's not dramatic, but still makes the > system appear a bit unpolished, when it happens. In the past, with > pre-5.x releases, FreeBSD has been scheduling disk i/o and interactive > work smoothly, in my experience, so one didn't quite notice when > heavy disk access was going on, at least not if your interactive > programs weren't doing much disk i/o themselves. >
Not sure about desktop machines, probably depends on what exactly you're doing. At least it affects real-world scenarios, see my original message to this list: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2005-March/013036.html - Christian -- Christian Brueffer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key: http://people.freebsd.org/~brueffer/brueffer.key.asc GPG Fingerprint: A5C8 2099 19FF AACA F41B B29B 6C76 178C A0ED 982D
pgpIDm1GO81J0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
